Son of Steven4064 vs NatWest ***WON***

steven4064 · 4th January 2007, 11:06

Son of Steven4064 (let's call him Steven4065) sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on 14th December and got all his statements within 4-5 days but nothing else.

Sent a reminder on 2 January pointing out that they had until 25th January to comply fully with his request. Letter copied to Data Protection Manager (Alex Lyons) in Edinburgh.

From the statements it looks like the claim will be over £1500.

steven4064 · 12th January 2007, 22:43

We received the following reply yesterday:

"DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 I write in response to your letter dated 2 January 2007.
- Manual Intervention
With reference to your request concerning any 'manual intervention' to the administrative charges debited, these charges have been processed in accordance with the terms and conditions of our current agreement with you as a result of the activity on your account. In the event that you breach the terms and conditions, we will take the appropriate action, contacting customers when appropriate, or handling customer enquiries regarding their account status. When a customer has raised a concern in relation to this process, the decision will be communicated to the customer and where appropriate noted on the account.

If you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.
Yours sincerely,
Joyce E Tudor-
Retail Regulatory Risk"

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

muggins73 · 12th January 2007, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by steven4064

Reminded MsTudor that they have util 23rd to answer the question properly or we'll apply for a court order. See what delaying tactics they try next.

I understand your frustration, but I wouldn't apply for a court order at this stage, if that is your intention. Stick to the plan, and follow the step-by-step guide contained within this forum. Any judge will need to see that you are being both 'fair and reasonable' when dealing with this matter. It will save a lot of red-faces in the long run

Either way, good luck.

steven4064 · 24th January 2007, 18:47

Would you credit it? (probably yes)

They have replied by sending exaclty the same letter again! Anyway, muggins73, we'll take your advice and go straight to the initial request for payment, rather than applying to the court for the missing information (that there have been no manual interventions). Presumably, we can always refer to this unhelpfulness on the N1 (can we?), if we get to that.

steven4064 · 9th February 2007, 12:41

Letter from Stu this morning with a whole load of self-justification and a pile of brochures with terms and conditions for all sorts of Nat West offeings.

After wading through the guff there is, as a gesture of goodwill, an offer of £1415.00 in full and final settlement.

This is everything we asked for except for £157 interest and in response to our Initail Request for Repayment.

Seems Nat West is on the run.

Steven

steven4064 · 10th February 2007, 01:16

However...

there is a sting in the tail. After waffling on about how wonderful they are in providing all their wonderful services for free they say,

"Whilst many of our services are provided without a corresponding charge, we do make charges when customers, by their actions, request an increase to or the creation of an overdraft in excess of their previously agreed limit. By reviewing such requests we provide an additional service to customers, in many instances allowing items to be paid either by creating or increasing an overdraft. These charges can be avoided entirely by arranging suitable borrowing facilities in advance."

Now that begs a whole load of questions: If I go overdrawn beacuse they slap an unlawful charge did I really 'request' it (perhaps I was just 'asking for it'). And do they really review my account every time I go overdrawn - I think not. (and if they do, how much does it cost - I bet we'd all like to know that!) And if they really do, why so coy about manual interventions?

Then the sting...

"Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with the bank. Should you be unwilling to accept any such charges, then we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities. Instead we may offer you a simple account that does not offer borrowing facilities or other services that can result in charges."

Well of course, I don't mind (well almost not) paying charges that 'properly accrue', but that's the whole point, isn't it?

We were thinking of accepting the offer (even though it doesn't include interest) but it seems in so doing we would effectively be agreeing to pay their unlawful charges in the future. On another thread NATTIE said we couldn't sign away our rights - quite right too. So, how should we proceed?

I am beginningto think we should carry on, accept the offer as a partial offer only, and go for the rest so that we get an unconditional offer. What does anyone else think?

Bicester1 · 10th February 2007, 08:11

Hi

This is exactly the same letter as I got. I asked for charges plus contractual at 29%. They offered charges, but no interest, so I have written back offering to accept charges plus s69.

Awaiting response.

This is a new tactic by Nat West and does have some implications especially for new claims. It will be up to each individual to decide if they think it is worth going through the whole court process to try to get s69 or contractual and I get the feeling reading thro the posts on this site that the courts are not always sympathetic to claims for contractual.

If you are confident of your claim then you have to decide if the time and effort is worth it for the interest!

This gets interesting!

steven4064 · 10th February 2007, 14:08

I think that getting the interest or not is now secondary. The implications of them trying to get us to agree to future charges is the sinister element that has come in. This also seems to be a new tactic.

It will be that rather then the interest that makes us press on I think so that we can get an offer wit hno strings attached.

Steven

10th February 2007, 14:16

Ah, so that is how the new account I heard of a few months ago is going to work, No direct debits and no standing orders allowed and only atm withdrawal card. Now i did think it was for this reason and now i see it in black and white. By the way the first bit of the letter, re service is part of new t&c's effective from 1st February 2007

steven4064 · 10th February 2007, 14:38

So the booklet they sent me (NWB 3773 December 2006) contains new T&Cs. It lays out all the unlawful charges VERY clearly (p12) and very helpfully.

NATTIE, what is your opinion on post 8. Am I right to continue to get an offer with no strings. I know what they are trying to do but, surely, getting us to effectively sign to accept the charges in the future doesn't make them any more lawful. And there is an implied 'or else' in there too. Or else what?

Also, the sentence about reviewing informal overdraft requests is obviously nonsense. But further, it is an attempt to deceive us into believing they do something for the money they take. I think that one could argue that the two things (deceptive claim to provide a 'service' and the attempt to 'persuade' us to accept the charges 'or else') probably constitute an abuse of position and hence are an offence under s4 of the Fraud Act 2006, or are dangerously close to doing so.

I am thinking of writing to the CEO of NatWest along these lines and pointing out that his staff (Stu et al) are putting him in a position where he personally could be prosecuted under s12 of the same act.

Bicester1 · 10th February 2007, 14:49

Hi

Yes like the Fraud Act! Would be very interesting to see the response.

Bicester1

MBNA WON £623

GM Card Won £580

Barclaycard LBA

Nat West Bank offer received negotiating

Nat West CC offer received negotiating

Lloyds PPI prelim

Any advice is given informally. I am not a lawyer. Consult a trained professional if unsure of your legal position. If my advice is helpful please tip my scales!

10th February 2007, 14:50

so sir fred Goodwin head of RBS GRoup plc limited. The non formal request is in the new T&C's leaflet sent out in statement insert November December and January. My personal opinion has always been that contractual interest is a difficult one to argue but each to their own. You can cross out conditions and return it to NatWest but always keep a copy

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and keeps this site free of third party adverts!

Small Claims Kit	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	CallBurner - Skype CallRecorder Review	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki N.B. Please note - due to postage costs these products are only available in the U.K.